Berkeley council adopts surveillance use policies and authorizes RFP process after extended public opposition

The Berkeley City Council on June 30 adopted surveillance acquisition reports and a surveillance use policy that will allow the city to issue a request for proposals (RFP) for two technologies: investigative software and voluntary community video streams.

The vote followed more than three hours of public comment and a lengthy council question-and-answer period. The council recorded yes votes from Councilmembers Castarwani, Taplin, O’Keefe, Blackabee, Humbert and Mayor Adina Ishii; Vice Mayor Treggaub abstained, and Councilmember Bartlett was absent. The motion carried, enabling staff to begin the RFP process and return with vendor recommendations before any contract is approved.

The policies cover two distinct tools. Investigative software is a search-and-analytics layer that indexes records the police already maintain to allow investigators to search across dispatch, report data, digital evidence, license-plate-reader data, fixed cameras, drone data and other sources. “It’s not a new camera or a new sensor. It doesn’t collect anything new,” Arla Malmberg, who briefed the council, told members during the presentation. The community video-streams program would let private camera owners voluntarily register and share existing footage with Berkeley Police for active incidents or investigations; owners would remain in control and could revoke access.

Supporters at council said the tools would speed investigations and aid officer safety. Councilmember O’Keefe, a member of the Public Safety Policy Committee that reviewed the proposals, argued that the technology simply makes existing footage easier to access: “There is no new surveillance here,” he said in discussion. Staff and council members emphasized policy guardrails adopted alongside the acquisition report, including a ban on facial-recognition technology, requirement that every search be tied to a case number, pre-integration review of cameras to reduce privacy risk, auditing and logs of access, and a prohibition on sharing BPD-owned footage with federal immigration enforcement.

Opponents at public comment contended the safeguards were insufficient and raised a range of concerns about scale, vendor behavior and federal access. Community speakers repeatedly asked the council to remove Item 19 (the RFP) from the consent calendar and delay any procurement. “Last month, Berkeley residents overwhelmingly showed up and stopped the flock expansion,” Musa Tariq of CAIR said during public comment, referring to past controversy around Flock and automatic license-plate readers. Jordan Parker, a caller, warned council members they are “tracking your votes very closely” and urged rejection of contracts with companies like Flock.

Mayor Adina Ishii tried to clarify procurement status for the public: “There is no Flock contract on the calendar this evening,” she said, adding that PAB members had participated in RFP development and that any contract would return to council for deliberation.

Public comments also cited the proposed package’s cost and risk. One speaker noted a $2,408,500 figure included in materials and urged council to prioritize community services instead. Staff responded that the documents adopt a cautious, staged approach: the council approved policy and assessment documents to start an RFP process, not a vendor contract, and said the RFP will include technical and policy criteria that reflect the adopted guardrails.

Next steps: staff will issue an RFP consistent with the adopted acquisition report and use policy, the Police Accountability Board will remain involved in reviews, and BPD will return to council with proposed vendor selections and any contract recommendations before funds are spent.

Votes recorded: Motion to adopt acquisition reports and the surveillance use policy carried (yes: Castarwani, Taplan, O’Keefe, Blackabee, Humbert, Mayor Ishii; abstain: Vice Mayor Treggaub; absent: Bartlett).